IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Wed, 08 May 2013 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3470F21F9352 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.477, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2cDHQoHcgc83 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (mxout.myoutlookonline.com [64.95.72.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A30E21F9301 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 08:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D738BF5AA; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan
Received: from HUB012.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF1348BF350; Wed, 8 May 2013 10:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BE235.mail.lan ([10.110.32.235]) by HUB012.mail.lan ([10.110.17.12]) with mapi; Wed, 8 May 2013 11:02:12 -0400
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:03:31 -0400
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
Thread-Index: Ac5L/SSFRfdKDbCZQY+YD1IoT40hPQ==
Message-ID: <520C76B2-825D-4FEA-B174-6E5F5EBE907D@vidyo.com>
References: <51894846.3090102@nostrum.com> <518955FE.9000801@alum.mit.edu> <51895D71.3090000@nostrum.com> <51896D91.9070004@alum.mit.edu> <00c201ce4b70$986ffee0$c94ffca0$@gmail.com> <51898653.1010907@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <51898653.1010907@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_520C76B2825D4FEAB1746E5F5EBE907Dvidyocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 15:03:38 -0000

On May 7, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

I want to re-iterate the most important part of my answer to Paul, since it allows anyone who can apply apply critical thinking skills to arrive at the correct conclusion about what we are proposing. Here is the crux of my answer again, from which the remainder of my answer was derived:
Looking at basic principles, the intention here is that the semantics would be identical to non-webrtc, non-bundle clients receiving multiple SSRCs on the same port.
Which would be great, if the community actually had a common understanding of what those semantics are.

--
Jonathan Lennox
jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email